Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.2973 of 2001. The accident occurred on 21.03.2001. Against a total claim of Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.97,220/-.
2. The appellant was aged 55 years at the time of the accident and she was a coolie worker with a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. She had sustained the following injuries:
“1) Sub arachnoid and extra dural haemerage
2) Fracture left rantal cirius extensive soft tissue injury face.
3) Fracture left end of radius right.
4) Fracture both bones of right leg.
5) Lacerations and abrasions all over the body.”
Going by the disability certificate produced she has got 20% permanent disability.
3. Para.2 of the appeal memorandum details the effect of the injuries on her body, which includes shortening of right leg.
4. This is a case where the Insurance Company had admitted the policy.
5. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. Going by para.10 of the impugned judgment, after discussing the disability certificate it was held by the Tribunal that not much reliance can be attached to this document since the Doctor who issued the same has not been examined.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said approach is not correct as the Tribunal is competent to consider the certificate after appreciating various facts with regard to the case. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the document is not acceptable since it has not been proved.
7. It is a case wherein various injuries have been sustained by the claimant and even the contents of the disability certificate have not been seen disputed. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the Tribunal in reducing the percentage of disability to 8%.
8. We find from para.8 of the judgment that Rs.3,000/- has been taken as the claimant's monthly income. Herein the accident occurred on 21.03.2001. Therefore, the same is reasonable since she was a coolie worker.
9. She was treated as an inpatient initially for 17 days namely, from 21.03.2001 to 26.04.2001. After the discharge on 26.04.01, she was again admitted in the hospital and was discharged on 11.05.2001. The remaining treatment period is from 26.06.2001 to 10.07.2001.
10. We find no reason to reject the claim of monthly income of Rs.3,000/- even though the Tribunal did not take the full amount and has fixed the same only at Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, we recalculate the compensation in the following manner:
We refix the compensation at Rs.1,64,500/-, (Rupees One lakh sixty four thousand five hundred only) which will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition as per the decision of the Apex Court in Supei Dei(Smt.) & Ors. v. National Insurance Co.Ltd. And Anr. [(2009) 4 SCC 513]. Since the policy is admitted, there will be a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount (less the amount if any paid already) and on such deposit being made, the claimant can withdraw the amount.
The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge rtr/ Sd/-
P.V.ASHA Judge /true copy/ P.S to Judge